We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 18 (2016), No. 4     15. Dec. 2016
EFAAD Award, best poster Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 18 (2016), No. 4  (15.12.2016)

Poster 1060, Language: English


Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of 2% and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Tooth Extraction
- a Double-blinded Randomised Clinical Trial
Kämmerer, Peer W. / Schneider, Daniel / Palarie, Victor / Schiegnitz, Eik / Daubländer, Monika
Objective: The purpose of this prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% articaine and 4% articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth.
Study Design: In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2% articaine (group I) and in 52 cases, 4% articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyse the differences in anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min) as well as length of soft tissue anesthesia (min) were evaluated. Additionally, the need for a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analysed.
Results: Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p=0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p=0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9h vs. 4h; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p=0.359), injection pain (p=0.386), and pain during (p=0.287) or after treatment (p=0.412). In both groups, no complications were seen.
Conclusion: The local anesthetic effect of the 4% articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2% articaine. For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2% may be used as an alternative as well.

Keywords: Dental local anesthesia, tooth extraction, articaine, nerve bloc

Poster Award: EFAAD Award, best poster

Conference/Exhibition:
2nd joint congress of DGMKG and BDO/32nd annual congress of BDO & 14th International Dental Congress on Anesthesia, Sedation and Pain control of IFDAS
08.-10. October 2015
Berlin, Germany